The Grievant was a Lieutenant with over sixteen (16) years of experience.  This incident involved a search warrant that was executed without SWAT assistance.  There were multiple supervisors involved in the operation which began on the day shift and carried over to the night shift.  There were multiple conversations between various supervisors and several detectives involved in the operation.

The Lieutenant on day shift started the preliminaries regarding the search warrant; however, he left before the Grievant arrived on night shift.  A threat assessment was completed and presented to the Grievant.  The threat assessment had a score of “SWAT activation preferred” but SWAT was not notified because the Detectives advised the Grievant that SWAT had been denied.  While the Employer asserts that the Chief and a Captain were to be notified before the warrant was served, the Grievant denied being informed of that requirement.  Neither the Chief nor the Captain were notified before the warrant was served and the warrant was served without SWAT’s assistance.  The next day, the Captain questioned why he was not notified prior to the warrant’s execution and an investigation ensued. The supervisors met after the incident to discuss how things could be handled better in the future.  Grievant, the only officer disciplined in this matter, was given a three (3) day suspension for unsatisfactory performance and violation of the search warrant policy.  A grievance was filed, resulting in arbitration.

The Employer argued that the Grievant’s work performance was unsatisfactory and that he violated the search warrant policy. The Employer argued that the Grievant should have notified the Chief and the Captain, who would make the decision if SWAT was to be utilized.

The Union argued there was no just cause for a three-day  suspension.  Based upon conversations with fellow officers, the Grievant thought that supervisors had denied the use of SWAT to execute the search warrant.  The Union further argued that there is no single person responsible for the failures, yet the Grievant was the only person disciplined.

The Arbitrator found that there were many layers of miscommunication.  No less than five (5) employees were involved with the warrant before any information was brought to the Grievant; the incident covered two (2) different shifts and personnel from both shifts; nothing was written down; information was passed on by word of mouth. It is obvious that there was miscommunication along the way.  Grievant was acting on his perceived knowledge based on what he was told, giving further credence to a breakdown in communication, yet the Grievant was the only officer found to be responsible for the miscommunication. Further, the Employer recognized that there was a breakdown in the warrant process in that they met to discuss the incident in an effort to prevent it from happening again.  The Grievant acted appropriately with the information that was provided to him.  The Employer did not have just cause to issue a 3-day suspension.

Grievance sustained. The 3-day suspension shall be rescinded and the Grievant made whole.

Employer:  City of Canton                                                                     Date: March 27, 2023